*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
--- On Wed, 3/30/11, Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual
To: "Pete McLaughlin" <pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 12:08 AM
Hi Pete
I haven't got an answer from you so far. Did I say anything in my mail that
annoyed you?
Best wishes
Leo Faulhaber
2011/3/22 Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com>
Hi Pete
Thanks for your answer!
2011/3/21 Pete McLaughlin <pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com>
hi Leo
The original notes of Dennis were typed up by Greg Pickering. The text found
on the Freezone website is that original material. Judith Anderson complained
to Dennis that there were a number of grammar errors in the text and corrected
these before she started selling her version of TROM.
Thanks for letting me know. I read that about Greg in your introduction.
i also found many grammar errors and other inconsistencies in the Greg
Pickering text so corrected these and added some footnotes and definitions etc.
to produce the TROM text you can download at tromhelp.com.
I do habe your "version" of TROM.
Dennis found he had made an error in wording on the level 5 chart which he
mentions in one of the tapes. i corrected the copy of TROM that i publish on
tromhelp.com to include this correction.
Well done. I listened to that tape too and it's "correctly corected" now. I
mean, it makes sense now and that's what it should do.
I see the point of logic you are making but it does not rise to the level of
being an error that will stop progress in
resolving the mind.
Great that you can see it. For most of the people it won't be problem. For me
it is (was) one. I got somehow stuck there. It worked like a misunderstood if
you know what I mean.
I hesitate to make changes in the text i post on the website beyond what i have
done so far. i could already be accused of altering the original text with what
i have done.
You don't need to make this change. But I would be happy if you could publish
my post on the mailing list so we can have a duscussionon it. If we then see
90% agreing with my point of view, you can have another look at it. (Or if we
have only 10% agreeing with me, I can have another look at it.)
You of course should make any changes you want in your copy so as to make TROM
work better for you.
I will mention it in my translation. Just a note in parentheses.
i keep my active copy of TROM on my laptop computer and make changes and add
notes when ever i feel the need. the addition or removal of even a comma can
greatly alter the meaning of the written document. as my understanding of TROM
increases i find that my earlier interpretation was incorrect and make changes.
I agree it's a heavy one to duplicate and duplication can change as one
progresses.
i expect this process to continue so i do not have a PERFECT text for TROM. i
feel it is best to leave it as close as possible to what Dennis approved at
present.
do bring up these observations as you find them and i hope others on the site
will benefit from relooking at the text to question if they
understood it right.
I appreciate that you maintain the site with the written and tape materials. On
the other hand I do have a slight disagreement with adding LRH definitions for
certains words or concepts out of the Tech Dictionary. For example that one for
"games condition". No need to define it per Scientology. Dennis does define it
much better in the text. Or that one for "communication". Dennis gives a much
better definition (in my opinion). It also might put TROM into danger because
of copyright infringements. It's already quite risky on the part of Dennis to
use the words "overt" and "motivator".
By the way: My translation is now being checked by Happyharry.
All the best
Leo
Keep on TROMing
Pete
--- On Sun, 3/20/11, Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com>
Subject: Possible error in the original TROM manual
To: trom-ow...@lists.newciv.org
Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 9:01 AM
Hello
I think there is an error in the original TROM manual. There is an additional
word in the following point 2). It says:
The four basic actions of life each have a twin postulate structure:
1. The postulate bringing the effect into existence, and the postulate that it
shall be known.
2. The postulate taking the effect out of existence, and the postulate that it
shall be made (this is the word in question) not-known.
3. The postulate to know the effect and the postulate that it shall be made
known.
4. The postulate to not-know the effect and the postulate that it shall be made
not-known.
My reasoning goes as follows:
If the word "made" is correct in point 2) then it should also be present in
point 1) which should then read: ... that it shall be made known.
But "to make known" or "to make not-known" are postulates on the self-side
(bringing something into existence). But here we have it to do with a twin
postulate structure. First part of the sentence is the "self-determined"
postulate and the second part of the sentence is the "pan-determined"
postulate. And the purpose for the "other side" (not self) is that it should be
known or not-known. So the word "made" is an additive and should be deleted.
Please let me know your ideas about this.
Leo Faulhaber
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
Trom@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
